linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 157/190] Revert "Input: ad7879 - add check for read errors in interrupt"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YIhB7rvHlFDew00z@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:55:10 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 157/190] Revert "Input: ad7879 - add check for read
 errors in interrupt"

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:03:33AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:00:32PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > This reverts commit e85bb0beb6498c0dffe18a2f1f16d575bc175c32.
> > 
> > Commits from @umn.edu addresses have been found to be submitted in "bad
> > faith" to try to test the kernel community's ability to review "known
> > malicious" changes.  The result of these submissions can be found in a
> > paper published at the 42nd IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy
> > entitled, "Open Source Insecurity: Stealthily Introducing
> > Vulnerabilities via Hypocrite Commits" written by Qiushi Wu (University
> > of Minnesota) and Kangjie Lu (University of Minnesota).
> > 
> > Because of this, all submissions from this group must be reverted from
> > the kernel tree and will need to be re-reviewed again to determine if
> > they actually are a valid fix.  Until that work is complete, remove this
> > change to ensure that no problems are being introduced into the
> > codebase.
> 
> This one looks really OK to me and does not have to be reverted (unless
> Aditya will come clean and show the error introduced?).

I'll drop this revert, but it isn't usually good to be calling printk()
from an irq.

thanks,

greg k-h